June 27, 2016

Hillary tweeted right away: "SCOTUS's decision is a victory for women in Texas and across America. Safe abortion should be a right—not just on paper, but in reality. -H" and "This fight isn't over: The next president has to protect women's health. Women won't be 'punished' for exercising their basic rights. -H" And Trump hasn't tweeted anything. Josh Voorhees (at Slate) says "The obvious answer is that Trump is either unwilling or unable to quickly sum up his thoughts on a topic that he has expressed so many conflicting views on in the past and that has caused him so many problems in the present...."

Another obvious answer is: Gender politics isn't his thing. He only talks about abortion when pushed or when attacked.

"SCOTUS's decision is a victory for the [second amendment] in Texas and across America. [The right to keep and bear arms] should be a right—not just on paper, but in reality. - [Trump]" and "This fight isn't over: The next president has to protect [women's and men's rights to keep and bear arms]. Women [and men] won't be 'punished' for exercising their basic rights. -[Trump]"

Of course he won't comment on it, it would only highlight his many previous conflicting comments regarding abortion. He angered the pro life people with his comments about punishing the mother. That wasn't part of their narrative. The dishonesty of saying it's murder and then not punishing the murderer, the mother, is just one of the inconsistencies of the pro life movement. Trump didn't do his homework ( as usual) and didn't get the pro life talking points right.

Abortion rites (i.e. selective-child policy) is a hard problem in societies with a State-established Pro-choice religion, minority normalization, and majority "good People". Still, even if when the child is aborted without conscience, the procedure to end a human life in vivo is fraught with immediate and latent dangers to the mother's life and welfare. While treating the mother and child with equal contempt is consistent with the pro-choice religious/moral doctrine, surely a semi-civilized society can strive to a higher moral ground. You know, for People and Posterity, too.

Scott McConnell, writing in the Pat Buchanan-founded The American Conservative, posits that Trump has been winning because he understands that "border wars have replaced culture wars."

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-trump-wins/

I don't know if McConnell is right, but if he is, what on earth explains how evangelical conservatives failed to prevent Trump from getting the nomination? They are all about the culture wars. And it is hard to explain how evangelical Christianity can even coexist with nativist anti-immigration Trumpism. Will evangelicals side against Iraqi and Syrian Chaldean Christian immigrants, who are persecuted in their homeland?

In a long list of things offensive about Donald Trump, his throwing in the towel on culture issues as he pursues his peculiar trade and immigration issues ranks.

Abortion is an area where the Democratic Party is far from the American mainstream. It's an issue ripe for his brand of highlighting the differences between what the Democrats want and what America wants.

Bigger question, "why hasn't HRC ever made a truthful statement regarding her criminal email activities?". Another, channeling Tim in VT, why was it your policy to murder an (tnx Bush 1) anti-terror ally so Libya could fall into the terrorist morass it is today? Well, good ol' "lead from behind" says it's the limey's/frog's fault, they didn't step up to clean-up after his & HRC's debacle.why do I continue to be forced to deny my self-realized robot hood?

Ah yes, Trump is well known for keeping silent on issues about which he has insufficient information. His sage, well thought out tweets on only the matters about which he has expertise and well-considered opinions are proof of this.

Or, if you step aside from your new role of interpreting everything though a pro-Trump lens, you might think the last time Trump tried to pretend he was pro-life he had to adjust his statements three times to get his message right and maybe this time is waiting for his post-Lewandowski advisers to weigh in. It's actually refreshing to see him actually wait before spouting off.

Blogger Chuck said...what on earth explains how evangelical conservatives failed to prevent Trump from getting the nomination? They are all about the culture wars. And it is hard to explain how evangelical Christianity can even coexist with nativist anti-immigration Trumpism.

How many unsupported assertions do you count there?

Actually, Chuck, it's not THAT hard to explain the evangelical support for Trump. You just have to be willing to take a look at your assumptions.

It's probably due largely to the gender politics. HClinton can use it to pander, DJT cannot. Just look at the bias in the headlines as it is, even yours, Professor, is somewhat misleading, and sadly is how the average Jane interprets it--that it was over the right to abortion, when it was over regs.

The first story out on the AP was "Supreme Court strikes down Texas abortion clinic regs" The three pictures with the article included:#1, All women, black and white, holding pink "feminists are the majority" signs, #2, All male, holding "we are the Prolife generation" signs, with a dopey looking guy that had a wide strip of red tape over his mouth#3, Same males (incl red-tape guy) but one shown more prominently with a large cross necklace.

The Examiner kept the same headline as AP.NBC chose to add the word "strict,": "Supreme Court strikes down strict Texas abortion laws"

This issue is so loaded and misrepresented on both sides, that it is probably wise of him not to comment. What's to gain by it? Nothing. (And especially since most men are attacked for having any opinion on the subject that isn't hardcore abort at any stage for any reason.)

I do find it interesting that every mistake and misstep Trump makes gets "interpreted" by Trump apologists into having some sort of real and cogent purpose. That wasn't a mistake, he meant to do that! Why isn't it obvious that Trump is exactly what he looks like everytime he opens his mouth? The man is no secret genius with magical powers of persuasion, well not over most people anyway.

In a civilized society, men and women have rights and responsibilities. In our society, if liberals want children to be sexually active, then they are also obligated to know their rights and responsibilities. There is no right to abort a human life for causes of wealth, pleasure, leisure, and narcissistic fulfillment. There is no right in civilized societies to deny the process (i.e. chaotic or evolutionary) and content (i.e. dignity and value) of human life, or to opportunistically debase the lives of its citizens for government revenue and democratic leverage. Ironically, in liberal societies, with established institutional abortion rites, there is also no natural or legal right to self-defense.

But there is no reason to believe that an extra layer of regulation would have affected that behavior. Determined wrongdoers, already ignoring existing statutes and safety measures, are unlikely to be convinced to adopt safe practices by a new overlay of regulations.

I do find it interesting that every mistake and misstep Trump makes gets "interpreted" by Trump apologists into having some sort of real and cogent purpose. That wasn't a mistake, he meant to do that! Why isn't it obvious that Trump is exactly what he looks like everytime he opens his mouth? The man is no secret genius with magical powers of persuasion, well not over most people anyway.

Blogger Michael K said..."abortions are going to go through the roof due to Zika in PR."

Not sure if this was you, Michael or you were quoting someone else.

But to respond to whoever, BULLSHIT

I live in PR since 71. My son is an MD, my son in law is an XRay tech, my daughter in law an physical therapist. In other words, in the medical field. (My daughter to but only in that she is QA director for a medical device plant)

they and everyone else I speak to think the whole zika thing is bullshit. Just a way for govt to try to scare us and to get money. Both local and federal.

We are far more concerned about the latest harebrained scheme to do aerial spraying of pesticides. they do not do this in the upper 50 because those state have reps, senators, governors etc who would raise holy Hell. We got nothing.

Zika is about 90% scam. It is a real illness but not a particularly harmful one. Not to adults, kids or to pregnant women.

I heard a theory today that Brazil doesn't really want 500,000 people coming for the Olympics. The don't think they can handle them. They would prefer half empty stadiums shot with careful camera angles to conceal the emptiness.

I do think that aerial spraying is not the way to go but that is due to effectiveness, not safety. Overuse of DDT allows mosquitoes to build up tolerance. Selective spot spraying seems to be much more effective.

It can be so emotionally tough for a woman to make the decision to abort her child: there is always the nagging doubt that she is killing a Life, an action that you can Never Take Back.

That is where I, LaManza, The Abortion Whisperer, step in.

However young, I can speak to a fetus and get it to understand it's impending Death in the Greater Scheme of Things.

First: I need to have Mozart playing in the background -- it helps settle the clump of cells.

Then I begin softly: Little One -- you hear me, yes?

You are Safe and Warm in the Womb somewhere between Infinity and the World, but I'm afraid there's been a Mistake: your Mother has decided that the World does not want you Here. By which I mean, She Doesn't Want You Here.

No, No: don't let your feeble fetal heartbeat race; it isn't your Fault, it is just that you are At The Wrong Time. So maybe then it is a Little Bit your Fault, but all that doesn't matter now, really.

I know you have the Whole of the Universe in your Head, just waiting to be Born into the Circle of Life, but it isn't happening Right Now. Sorry. The Scissors that will enter your Head are for your own Good: Really: Mommy says so.

Don't Be Sad, Little One: it is not as if she doesn't Love You, it is just that she doesn't see you as Anything to Be Loved. When you are in Heaven, watching Mommy live her Life while pretending you never even existed, it Will All Make Sense.

Please don't fret, my Little One: there are a lot of You up there, just waiting to Welcome You.

If she had just paid a Gosnell, she'd be home free:"Emile Weaver, center, standing next to her attorney Aaron Miller, left, looks toward the gallery while addressing the court during her sentencing Monday, June 27, 2016...Judge Mark Fleegle sentenced Weaver to life in prison without parole for disposing of her newborn baby in a trash bin outside the Delta Gamma Theta sorority house on campus. Weaver, 21, was found guilty by a jury last month of aggravated murder, abuse of a corpse and tampering with evidence."

@Althouse, the decision was expected, but was it wise? Left-leaning people are celebrating the fact that abortion clinics don't have to meet the standards for a clinic that does outpatient therapy, but doesn't that put the woman's life at risk if things go wrong with her abortion procedure? The regulations on outpatient clinics are there for a reason; whether the law was a "backhanded way to limit abortions" or not (let me stipulate that it was), are you comfortable with woman perhaps dying because a gurney couldn't get through to the room where the woman was having her procedure?

Ann sez: Another obvious answer is: Gender politics isn't his thing. He only talks about abortion when pushed or when attacked.

An authoritarian doesn't require a reason - just an unimpaired brain. If Donald Trump thinks the way to make America great is to retaliate against Oreos being made outside the country, then killing babies would logically be higher than Oreos on his list of important things. But we also know that mental confusion is not uncommon among septuagenarians.

Personally, I am reluctantly, reluctant for the reasons Laslo listed above, but reluctantly pro-choice. I have still supported pro-life candidates because, like Trump, I am thinking, the issue is not live or die with me. I am conflicted, though with Obamacare, my concerns about getting the government involved so deeply in medical care have become a little moot, I still don't want the police investigating every miscarriage. All I can say to pro-life voters is that if Hillary wins, she gets to dictate the makeup of the SCOTUS for a generation, and we know that she doesn't view the unborn baby as human in any way and she will have no problem setting litmus tests for the SCOTUS.

Ever notice how nobody ever wonders how the 4 liberal "justices" will vote on issues of devilish complexity? A fifth groupthink "justice" will at least take the suspense out of June, in fact, the SCOTUS will probably get to pack their bags and slam their trunks early every year.

But I still think that Texas should simply tax abortions. The SCOTUS has held that the government's power to control our lives through taxation is apparently unlimited.

Gadfly wrote:"If Donald Trump thinks the way to make America great is to retaliate against Oreos being made outside the country, then killing babies would logically be higher than Oreos on his list of important things."Do you honestly believe that Donald Trump (or anyone else) cares about Oreos being made outside the United States? What he cares about are American jobs. Maybe next you will describe tech jobs as 'pushing buttons'. "Does Donald Trump care if people push buttons outside of the United States?" Har har!Jesus you are a dumb bunny, Gadfly. I think you are actually dumber than Trump.

"But I still think that Texas should simply tax abortions. The SCOTUS has held that the government's power to control our lives through taxation is apparently unlimited."

They could do this by saying the money raised from the tax helps fund enforcement efforts against illegally performed abortions. Though I'm sure the Court would come up with some way to find that invalid.

There are two things we can count on no matter who sits on the Court--abortion will always be legal, even if sometimes restricted (so long as it's not TOO restricted) and race can always be used as a factor for everything, as long as it is not TOO blatant.

That women, the nurturers, could possibly think that killing the unborn is a "right" is how far we have fallen as a moral nation.

What they see as a "right" is more of a "convenience".

That old biddy Ginsberg has even said that abortion was a way to "control" the black population, but of course that was swept under the rug.

"[Roe v. Wade] surprised me. Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion".

The "law prof" even blogged about it here:http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/10/when-roe-v-wade-came-out-justice.html

"Law prof" is muddled and unclear as usual. Her failure to see ANY absolute truth and only relativity means that logic, an "if- then" statement based on an ultimate truth, is impossible.

This Court only uses the rules of statutory construction and standing only when it suits them, and allowed the plaintiffs to vindicate the rights of another party, while deeming an act of CONGRESS "UNCONSTITUTIONAL". Of course they used the mental gymnastics that an act of Congress should be deemed "Constitutional" to deem that Obamacare was "constitutional". These faux "legal experts" are nothing but cowardly political hacks. Lord help us if Clinton gets to put another relativist on the bench.

They allowed abortion providers who are in THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING ABORTIONS, to vindicate the rights of women to HAVE ABORTIONS. The only person that should have standing based on a 14th Amendment claim is a woman that could not get an abortion because of this statute. An abortion "business" has no 14th Amendment claim based on its right to have an abortion.

Standing is used by the courts as a bar and a bludgeon, and is ignored when it suits these political factions.

Trump hasn't said anything because he's not really against abortion, and is not familar with this issue. Also because the Texas law was sort of like a backhanded way to limit abortions.

How is it different than any other regulation for any other business on Earth?

Why is abortion the only thing that you cannot inconvenience with regulation?

I don't know if McConnell is right, but if he is, what on earth explains how evangelical conservatives failed to prevent Trump from getting the nomination? They are all about the culture wars. And it is hard to explain how evangelical Christianity can even coexist with nativist anti-immigration Trumpism. Will evangelicals side against Iraqi and Syrian Chaldean Christian immigrants, who are persecuted in their homeland?

Because the GOP has shat on the religious for a few years now and we don't see any benefit in helping them. They'll get into office --- and be Democrats.

We are far more concerned about the latest harebrained scheme to do aerial spraying of pesticides. they do not do this in the upper 50 because those state have reps, senators, governors etc who would raise holy Hell. We got nothing.

That was done here in the upper 50 in the 50's and 60's. Eradicated malaria pretty effectively.

But if it is a girl baby being subjected to the system's final solution, then Women's Health should be the last phrase used in describing it.

A move to gut basic cleanliness requirements for abortion clinics shouldn't be under "women's health", either.

"Emile Weaver, center, standing next to her attorney Aaron Miller, left, looks toward the gallery while addressing the court during her sentencing Monday, June 27, 2016...Judge Mark Fleegle sentenced Weaver to life in prison without parole for disposing of her newborn baby in a trash bin outside the Delta Gamma Theta sorority house on campus. Weaver, 21, was found guilty by a jury last month of aggravated murder, abuse of a corpse and tampering with evidence."

Her lawyer should have had the balls to argue "Practicing medicine without a license"...though in CA, a license isn't even required. You know, for women's health and shit.

EDH The decision struck down the entire statute, even things like requiring informed consent from patients before experimenting on them.

And that's in spite of having a severability clause in it as well.

I find it amazing that when old people vote to leave the UK, we should ban them from voting. But when 5 old lawyers vote to keep abortion unsanitary, we should applaud it.

One possibility is he agrees with the SC decision but doesn't want to (further) alienate his more conservative base. Another is that he doesn't care that much about abortion one way or the other, a position held by a majority of Americans I suspect...

damikesc said......Because the GOP has shat on the religious for a few years now and we don't see any benefit in helping them. They'll get into office --- and be Democrats.

I just know I will regret it, but I just have to ask; how has the GOP let down Christian conservatives in particular? The GOP has gone to pains, to promote religious liberty legislation, and indeed has used considerable political capital on the cause. The GOP has remained steadfastly opposed to the inclusion of homosexuals in civil rights legislation schemes. And the GOP has pushed back against the transgender bathroom movement. At the expense of national mainstream media ridicule.

I consider those types of things of the utmost importance to the Christian Right. And of less importance to any Christian, would be kicking out of the country any decent, working, illegal aliens.

Donald Trump is "conservative" in just a few aspects, all of them irrelevant to Christian and social conservatives. And Trump is NOT conservative in any of the ways that are or should be important to Christian and social conservatives.

That is neither necessary nor plausible. For better or worse, committing abortion is a natural right. However, the legal and moral right to abort and cannibalize unwanted or inconvenient human lives was pulled out of the twilight zone by liberal (i.e. divergent, unprincipled) judges, promoted by special interests (e.g. female chauvinists, Planned Parenthood et al), and sustained by minority liberal factions and "good Americans" (e.g. quid pro quo).

Under our constitution, the government has a compelling interest and legal duty to protect the rights of the two named parties to the constitution: People and Posterity, and to control debasement of both.

Liberty is a state of cooperation with associated rights and responsibilities granted to women and men capable of self-moderating, responsible behavior. That is what needs to be indoctrinated throughout our society into every man, woman, and child. The alternative is a progressive, authoritarian State.

The goal of civilized society is to normalize or promote functional outcomes (e.g. human rights), and to either tolerate or reject marginal and dysfunctional behaviors. The foundation of civilized society is formed through a reconciliation of moral and natural imperatives.

"Donald Trump is "conservative" in just a few aspects, all of them irrelevant to Christian and social conservatives. And Trump is NOT conservative in any of the ways that are or should be important to Christian and social conservatives."

Christians and pro-lifers (not always one and the same) have gotten about as good a deal being tied into the GOP as the blacks have been being tied to the Dems. They can be taken for granted by one party and become a non-factor to the other. Nominating Trump (who is perhaps the distillation of an anti-Christian, unless we're to expand the definition of Christian to absurd new breadths) should have been the last straw. Christians and pro-lifers would be better off forming a third party, uniting white and black Christians and pro-lifers, and forcing both the GOP and Dems to try and appeal to them for their nomination and have some leverage.

Wow! What more do you think Republicans should be doing, on anortion and gay rights? In terms of state legislation? In terms of federal legislation? What sort of federal legislation is possible, in the face of about 45 liberal Democrats in the Senate and a liberal Democrat in the White House?

Who,specifically, among GOP leadership has been unfriendly to Christian conservatives?

And why is Donald Trump any sort of answer to your concerns about (your alleged) GOP inhospitable treatment of Christian conservatives? Trump is the ONLY Republican in a generation who ran for President with a history of "firmly pro-choice" pronouncements, however distant.

"And why is Donald Trump any sort of answer to your concerns about (your alleged) GOP inhospitable treatment of Christian conservatives? Trump is the ONLY Republican in a generation who ran for President with a history of "firmly pro-choice" pronouncements, however distant."

We could get in the weeds of what the GOP has or hasn't done for pro-lifers and Christians--there's a lot of "half a loaf" and "unreliable judicial nominees" issues in there ripe for another discussion. I don't think there's too much more the GOP could have done, which is why it'd be better for those groups to form a third party and join forces when useful.

But Trump is pretty much the nadir of pro-life and Christian influence on the GOP in modern times. It's not even just that the man is unreliable on those issues (which he of course is, as he is unreliable on everything else except his own self-worship) but that he is proudly ignorant of all aspects of those issues. His floundering responses on abortion were telling--this was a man who made no effort to try and understand pro-lifers, which is remarkable for a nominee of the so-called pro-life party.

Add to that his exulting in cruelty towards others, his promise of war crimes, his favorite Bible passage being "an eye for an eye" (not exactly New Testament and certainly not the best thing to get out of Christianity) and his absolute inability to recognize any fault in himself--true self-worship--and it boggles the mind that any Christian can back him.

Brando, the distressing history of some Republican nominees to the Supreme Court is well documented. I just always marveled at what a craptastic pair of choices Reagan made in O'Connor and Kennedy, and what a superior pair of choices George W. Bush made in Roberts and Alito.

Of course, there isn't much personal about the best picks. Reagan would never have known what a magnificent pick Scalia was. His legal staff told him. George W. Bush needed to be virtually grabbed by the scruff of his neck to understand what a stupid pick Harriet Miers was.

Similarly; I expect that a President Trump would be told in no uncertain terms who to pick. And with the close adult supervision of Mitch McConnell, Jeff Sessions, Ted Cruz and the Federalist Society, a President Trump probably would not blow it. But a President Trump still needs a Republican Senate, and candidate Trump is such a drag, the GOP incumbents in 2016 battleground states don't even want to be seen with Trump.

I was going to make a Tar Baby reference re Trump, but remembered that term is now officially RAAAAAAAAAAACIST.

Trump could go the whole election and mention only the issues that win him voters, and ignore completely the morass of issues that have destroyed lesser candidates in previous elections. Knowing the press will denounce him for having a non-PC position if he adopts any position but the Democrat one, silence is better option.

"Similarly; I expect that a President Trump would be told in no uncertain terms who to pick. And with the close adult supervision of Mitch McConnell, Jeff Sessions, Ted Cruz and the Federalist Society, a President Trump probably would not blow it. But a President Trump still needs a Republican Senate, and candidate Trump is such a drag, the GOP incumbents in 2016 battleground states don't even want to be seen with Trump."

I think you have more faith in Trump and the GOP Senators than I do--I don't see him being loyal to anything but his own expedience and could easily see him go with a more "moderate" pick to win Democratic votes because why not? He'd still get enough Republicans on board to get the nominee passed, and all he really cares about is that the Justice would support whatever executive power grab he wants.

This is a year with no good choices, so it sort of doesn't matter if we get drowned or burned to death.

Brando, your several comments on this post have all been excellent. I don't wish to argue with any of them. And I'd certainly concede to you the possibility that Trump could screw up a SCOTUS nomination. For precisely the reason you suggest. That a deal-making Trump could be forced into a bad compromise nomination because Dick Durbin and Chuck Schumer are slick, evil manipulators and will know what buttons to push. Trump doesn't much know about, or cares about, or believes in, the work of The Federalist Society. Like you, Brando, I expect Trump could be compromised for some other deal.